Embed Notice

@HeavenlyPossum

I’m not asking about the chart, I’m asking about your claim that lower US life expectancy despite higher healthcare spending is likely the product of allegedly different lifestyle choices. That was your claim, above.

There are multiple claims I made, two of relevance here.

1) That the chart would be rejected as bad and misleading science due to lack of normalization.

2) My opinion as to what the likely interpritation would be if the OP had done correct science.

You are asking about #2, how I formed my opinion, and then think your being smart by holding it to scientific rigor. The part that is my opinion need not hold to scientific rigor, that the nature of opinions. But should it be disproven by scientific rigor then I should, of course, incorperate that science into forming my opinion, and if the evidence is strong a reasonable person should change their opinion to match it.

As I said I am happy to explore the science that would form my opinion, but its a tangent that has no value to point #1 which is the only important point I made in this thread

As stated regardless of if my opinion is correct I have suffiuciently shown #1 and that wouldnt change even if my opinion in #2 is wrong. So while I know you’d like to go into the weeds and argue #2 that has no value to the point being made here, but happy to explore it if thats where you want to go.

While Max Roser doesn’t explicitly explain his methodology behind the chart—I don’t know that he didn’t normalize the data—he shares your neoliberal faith in blaming systemic effects on individual lifestyle choices.

We do know he didnt normalize the data, this is evident by how the data is labeled. If it were normalized this would be reflected in the chart.

I asked you to explain your assertion and it seems that it’s based on unfounded assumptions.

I didnt tell you what the data was behind my opinion. Only that the overwhelming data seemed obvious and hard to deny. So you can argue i didnt provide data, but you drawing the conclusion its an assumption is clearly contrary to what I explicitly stated. Something being obvious is not the same as an assumption, lack of scientific rigor is also not the same as an assumption. At best you can say its an opinion that is not sufficiently proven in this conversation, that again is not the same as an assumption

Again, you made a positive and probabilistic assertion about a causal relationship between the chart’s results and lifestyle that you have consistently resisted trying to demonstrate.

See my above, I expressed my opinion which was secondary and really of no real importance to the porimary point of bad-science being made. Yes I refused to prove that because as I have stated many times it is neither relevant to my point to prove it, nor neccesary for one to prove their opinions to others, people can and do have opinions that do not have all the elements of scientific rigor as previously explained, that does not imply it isnt a fact based or evidence based opinion however, we simply didnt waste time going into the facts as they have no relevance to my point.

@GossiTheDog @juergen_hubert @malwaretech